The UK case is always what I assumed the main point of the right to remain silent was about. How can you compell someone to reveal something that you can't prov

The UK case is always what I assumed the main point of the right to remain silent was about. How can you compell someone to reveal something that you can't prove they know? Memory is fallible and it seems wrong to be incriminated since you forgot something or just never knew it in the first place. The extension of that is you can just always say "I don't know". So the right to remain silent is basically a shortcut to avoid this issue.